09-03-2016, 06:29 AM
indeed [i think]. each subjectivity, or 'individual', already hides a multiplicity. one need never be read and yet still write to be read. or, to put it a better way, one will write 'as if' the poem is, or is going to be, read. it may not be a dramatically conscious choice, hardly conscious at all. . . one can always say to oneself "i don't care if anyone reads this"; but not caring is not the same. even if i were to write a poem down in a hole at the end of the garden, burning it on completion, it doesn't mean that i have abandoned all concept of communication. i will have, after all, and at the most basic level, used letters identifiable to 'others'. these letters have the potential to be transferred, communicated. and to be sure, the mere fact that the language i use to translate raw sense data into coherent thoughts is fundamentally gregarious means that my individual thoughts are gregarious in nature. for one to genuinely write for oneself, one would have to be unaware that the marks one was making on the paper [or screen] had this potential. but this is at the most basic level, and in this area there may be some room for manoeuvre; but once one acknowledges a complex system [language/poetry], and plugs into that system, one has no more recourse to "i'm on my own". . . not only that, but one cannot then say "the system, itself, is unitary", i.e. it's just me and the system. the best one can say, in terms of writing, is "i personally enjoy the process, but the process would never get going without the concept of potential communication. . . i cannot think without it". enjoyment may be my primary experience of the process but there are value judgements within that system: "that's good", and as soon as there are value judgements based around a communal system, the enjoyment is already multiplied. i suppose, in a way, what this is describing is a kind of Freudian super-ego crossed with a Sartrean Other, with a bit of Deleuzean over-coding, for good measure.
sometimes i sit alone and strum on my guitar [oh dear, how sad]; if i hit a bum note i hear it, but i hear it through The Other's ear. When i read a typo i've made, i read it on behalf of The Other. this doesn't mean that experimentation is out the window. this doesn't mean i cannot write some strange nonsense that no one likes or understands, and yet still like what i've written, myself. it doesn't mean one cannot be creative or create something within, or along the edge of, the system—or even outside in relation to it. it simply, and somewhat ironically, means "know thyself" [in the Hobbesian sense]. our poetry can only improve knowing that our relationship with poetry is a symbiotic* relationship between ourselves and everyone else. and, as with any symbiotic relationship there are three types: mutualism, commensalism, and parasitic. i think, although we would like our poetry to be based on mutualism, it is more often than not commensalism; furthermore, the notion that one is separate from the symbiosis is parasitical in nature. yep, i'm suggesting that those who say "i write for myself" or ". . .for poetry" are parasites
that's a bit harsh. and not strictly true. they benefit from feeding on a communal language while denying credit to the community.
but what is this "for myself"? surely, we all understand language has the potential to be "for others", but this isn't how we are using the statement "i write for myself". when we say "i write for myself" we mean that when we write 1) we do it for the personal pleasure of writing, and 2) we are unconcerned if what we write is appreciated by others. i'd say, it's too late for all that. you're already a cog in a much larger machine the moment you decide to write a poem, regardless how you feel about it. but at least those who say "i write for myself" could have some "for themselves" benefit—we understand 'for' differently, here—in the therapeutic sense. "i write for myself. it helps me relax. it gets it off my chest. i feel better." etc. but to say "i write for poetry" is equal to saying "i consciously and explicitly write for others and just can't bring myself to admit it in so many words." to write 'for poetry' is writing for the most specific audience, i.e. those that actually read poetry [i think they're all on this site. . . about 20 at most] this position is psychologically fascinating. what is it about writing for others that is so shameful? simplistically, it seems like a holding on to the romantic and mystical ideas about art. that somehow the artist is a sealed unit of abstract creativity. the truth is, the abstract is the least creative thing about art. because, as before, the subject is already a multiplicity. the physical is individual the abstract is communal.
how does complexity vs. simplicity fit into all this? so, on the side of simplicity, we have explicit communication. on the complexity side, a going towards writing for oneself. we have, however, established that we cannot expect to use a communal system of language and write exclusively for ourselves [no matter how we romanticise the process]. even if we say "it is only for me to read"—therapeutically—we have to still admit a psychological state [the subject qua multiplicity] whereby the potential to be read by others is already part of the assemblage of writing. therefore, we might say, the degrees of complexity merely narrow the practical potential—not potential per se—for communication. the trouble is, up to now, we have used communication in a very vague way. are all poems really about communicating ideas? code poems are somewhat unique in so far as they are written with the intention to communicate something very clear and definite. good poems, on the other hand, communicate a sense, or even, a sensation. there is a beauty in simplicity. the phrase "i love you", well placed, can communicate so much—even the sense of the beauty of simplicity, itself.
one of my favourite poems is 'echo's bones' [personally, i think Beckett is one of the most underrated poets and overrated playwrights] and 'the vulture' begins it all with:
dragging his hunger through the sky
of my skull shell of sky and earth
stooping to the prone who must
soon take up their life and walk
mocked by a tissue that may not serve
till hunger earth and sky be offal
here we have a beautiful and simple poem. there is no code, or cipher. it doesn't use obscure words or references. is Beckett writing for himself? one should hope not because it looks like a skill. he knows exactly what he is doing to/for the reader with laser precision. like a painter knows how to paint something beautiful [or ugly]. it'll irritate the poetry logicians, not least because he knows it will. it's simple but not shallow or blunt. it is conscious of an audience because it doesn't patronise the audience. just because it has an audience in mind doesn't mean that it isn't honest or true or expressive. and just because it acknowledges 'being read' doesn't mean it is any less creative and unique. in fact, one will often find that poets who claim to write for themselves actually write terrible poetry, interesting, but terrible. and the other ones, the one's that write the crack, lie about it and say "i write for poetry"
sometimes i sit alone and strum on my guitar [oh dear, how sad]; if i hit a bum note i hear it, but i hear it through The Other's ear. When i read a typo i've made, i read it on behalf of The Other. this doesn't mean that experimentation is out the window. this doesn't mean i cannot write some strange nonsense that no one likes or understands, and yet still like what i've written, myself. it doesn't mean one cannot be creative or create something within, or along the edge of, the system—or even outside in relation to it. it simply, and somewhat ironically, means "know thyself" [in the Hobbesian sense]. our poetry can only improve knowing that our relationship with poetry is a symbiotic* relationship between ourselves and everyone else. and, as with any symbiotic relationship there are three types: mutualism, commensalism, and parasitic. i think, although we would like our poetry to be based on mutualism, it is more often than not commensalism; furthermore, the notion that one is separate from the symbiosis is parasitical in nature. yep, i'm suggesting that those who say "i write for myself" or ". . .for poetry" are parasites
that's a bit harsh. and not strictly true. they benefit from feeding on a communal language while denying credit to the community.but what is this "for myself"? surely, we all understand language has the potential to be "for others", but this isn't how we are using the statement "i write for myself". when we say "i write for myself" we mean that when we write 1) we do it for the personal pleasure of writing, and 2) we are unconcerned if what we write is appreciated by others. i'd say, it's too late for all that. you're already a cog in a much larger machine the moment you decide to write a poem, regardless how you feel about it. but at least those who say "i write for myself" could have some "for themselves" benefit—we understand 'for' differently, here—in the therapeutic sense. "i write for myself. it helps me relax. it gets it off my chest. i feel better." etc. but to say "i write for poetry" is equal to saying "i consciously and explicitly write for others and just can't bring myself to admit it in so many words." to write 'for poetry' is writing for the most specific audience, i.e. those that actually read poetry [i think they're all on this site. . . about 20 at most] this position is psychologically fascinating. what is it about writing for others that is so shameful? simplistically, it seems like a holding on to the romantic and mystical ideas about art. that somehow the artist is a sealed unit of abstract creativity. the truth is, the abstract is the least creative thing about art. because, as before, the subject is already a multiplicity. the physical is individual the abstract is communal.
how does complexity vs. simplicity fit into all this? so, on the side of simplicity, we have explicit communication. on the complexity side, a going towards writing for oneself. we have, however, established that we cannot expect to use a communal system of language and write exclusively for ourselves [no matter how we romanticise the process]. even if we say "it is only for me to read"—therapeutically—we have to still admit a psychological state [the subject qua multiplicity] whereby the potential to be read by others is already part of the assemblage of writing. therefore, we might say, the degrees of complexity merely narrow the practical potential—not potential per se—for communication. the trouble is, up to now, we have used communication in a very vague way. are all poems really about communicating ideas? code poems are somewhat unique in so far as they are written with the intention to communicate something very clear and definite. good poems, on the other hand, communicate a sense, or even, a sensation. there is a beauty in simplicity. the phrase "i love you", well placed, can communicate so much—even the sense of the beauty of simplicity, itself.
one of my favourite poems is 'echo's bones' [personally, i think Beckett is one of the most underrated poets and overrated playwrights] and 'the vulture' begins it all with:
dragging his hunger through the sky
of my skull shell of sky and earth
stooping to the prone who must
soon take up their life and walk
mocked by a tissue that may not serve
till hunger earth and sky be offal
here we have a beautiful and simple poem. there is no code, or cipher. it doesn't use obscure words or references. is Beckett writing for himself? one should hope not because it looks like a skill. he knows exactly what he is doing to/for the reader with laser precision. like a painter knows how to paint something beautiful [or ugly]. it'll irritate the poetry logicians, not least because he knows it will. it's simple but not shallow or blunt. it is conscious of an audience because it doesn't patronise the audience. just because it has an audience in mind doesn't mean that it isn't honest or true or expressive. and just because it acknowledges 'being read' doesn't mean it is any less creative and unique. in fact, one will often find that poets who claim to write for themselves actually write terrible poetry, interesting, but terrible. and the other ones, the one's that write the crack, lie about it and say "i write for poetry"